Fourth, there is no room for competition in tax: competition is based on the assumption that participants may fail and there is not room for failure in tax collection.
Rather missing a bit of history there, isn’t he? That history being full of examples of failed states? Competition exists whether you like it or not, as does failure.
More fundamentally, he (you?) is misunderstanding the nature of the competition. “Failing to have as many multinationals domiciled in your country as you would like” does not mean “turning into a failed state.”
Marc Marquez, Spanish/Catalan motorbike champ to reside in Andorra.
30,000€ in income tax instead of just under half on 10,000,000€
Now that guy understands competition and winning.
Apparently a whole flock of pro bikers including a Briton live there.
“there is not room for failure in tax collection.”
Maybe he should remind hmrc of this? They seem to screw up often enough.
Anyway, his argument isn’t even internally correct – competition only assumes someone can come second. It’s pretty harsh to call that failure, and doesn’t match the fact that we clearly have competition, yet don’t see a world littered with failed states.
And as usual he’s confusing his own preferences with how the world actually is.
Hmm. Thing is, most of those failed states were pretty shoddy at tax collection. Those that are failing are shoddy at tax collection. And in the civilised world, the more decent places (this is admittedly subjective) to live tend to have higher tax rates (Sweden vs. USA, or Germany vs. Ireland for example). Granted there are a few outliers but they tend to be small places that can raise similar revenue/pax by doing odd things like attracting lots of billionaires.
I might not particularly like the conclusion but data are just data.
If there’s no room for failure in tax collection, how can there be a tax gap?
Rob wins the thread
However, it can also be argued that the draconian collection of taxes, such as the USA, which demands you pay it income tax where ever you live in the world or Sweden with its eye-watering income tax rates are actually alienating those with substantial capital or potential.
It is well understood that those who have the potential to become billionaires because of the new digital revolution are advised to drop their US citizenship and take up another countries before their equity shareholdings are valued in a takeover.
Equally, a Swedish friend of mine who works in the shipping industry described his home country as a “socialist gulag” and spent a great deal of time and money expatriating to Switzerland to give his children a chance at genuine freedom rather than Nordic equality.
Here in the U.S., states compete. As Tim says, competition exists, whether the states know it or not. States like California have high personal income tax. Florida has none (!). Guess where Phil Mickelson is moving?
http://www.jeffrealty.com/blog/2013/01/how-soon-is-phil-mickelson-moving-to-florida/
Bilbaoboy
And quite a few of them live here as well as non-doms. Personally in his position I would have chosen the shores Lake Geneva or Zurich, buy each to their own.
I remember Ritchie once explaining supply and demand to us, using the vacant CEO job at RBS: nobody applied at the remuneration package on offer. This shows there was…No Demand. When demand drops you…Lower the Price. So… Lower the Salary on Offer.
His grasp of competition seems equally as secure.